Re: Mercurial "r####" numbers are not stable, use commit ids

Michael Sperber writes: Yes. I find that Mercurial is as bad as CVS in terms of making me want to commit everything I write as quickly as possible to get it out of my face. What's worse is, it makes it easy to do that. I do mean named branches, something I can stash away for a week or ten, and have the history there when I can come back to it. A little. But I don't concentrate on a set of patches on a common theme over a period of time. I work on a wide variety of things in response to reports on xemacs-beta, and I fix unrelated bugs as I go along. I didn't find a comfortable way to use MQ in that setting. In particular, unlike a branch which has a well-defined history and terminal state, it just didn't work for me to go away from a queue for very long because it was hard to figure out where I was. On the other hand, the ability to manipulate complex configurations of patches isn't useful to me; I've never actually dealt with a situation where that would be helpful. The other problem with Mercurial is that there are all these extensions, but there's no way to find out what they are! "mq" is mentioned in man hgrc (but nowhere in hg help), and guessing "transplant" worked. But I wonder what else there might be out there.... Well, that's what happened as best I can guess, and Mercurial issued no complaints. _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta